University of South Florida
Scholar Commons
Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School
12-2-2015
Relationship between First-Generation College
Students' Expectations for Experiences with
Faculty Members and Students' Success after the
First Year
Christina D. Nelson
University of South Florida, chnelson@mail.usf.edu
Follow this and additional works at:https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd
Part of theCurriculum and Instruction Commons, and theHigher Education Commons
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact
scholarcommons@usf.edu.
Scholar Commons Citation
Nelson, Christina D., "Relationship between First-Generation College Students' Expectations for Experiences with Faculty Members and Students' Success after the First Year" (2015). Graduate Theses and Dissertations.
Relationship between First-Generation College Students’ Expectations for Experiences with Faculty Members and Students’ Success after the First Year
by
Christina D. Nelson
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in Curriculum and Instruction with a concentration in Higher Education Administration
Department of Leadership, Counseling, Adult, Career and Higher Education College of Education
University of South Florida
Major Professor: Thomas E. Miller, Ed.D. Donald A. Dellow, Ed.D.
W. Robert Sullins, Ed.D. William H. Young III, Ed.D.
Date of Approval: December 2, 2014
Keywords: CSXQ, continuing-generation, persistence, retention Copyright © 2015, Christina D. Nelson
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, husband, and two children.
To my mom, Sheila Darpino, who has been an amazing educator since my earliest days in school. Without your constant patience and guidance, I would never have had the courage to attempt such a challenging undergraduate program at Cornell, let alone persevered to graduation and doctoral coursework. You helped me believe in making the impossible a reality despite obstacles that presented themselves along the way. Thank you for being the person that always took the time to truly listen and talk things out when I needed it most.
To my husband, Tom, your consistent support through every pursuit, including my dream to earn my Ph.D., has been one of my key motivations. Your unwavering positivity and belief in my ability kept me going through the most challenging times. Your ability to know when to pull me away from schoolwork and infuse humor into my life, while encouraging me to take some moments to relax, helped me to make it through to the end. As my partner in life, you have never doubted me even when I wanted to give up and I will never be able to thank you enough.
To my two miracles, my daughter Madison and son Brody, you have changed my life in such an amazing way. Without even knowing it, you had the power to push me to accomplish this and helped me realize I am capable of taking on more than I ever imagined possible. You made me believe in the power of the smallest things and helped me appreciate the moments we have as a family. I am beyond excited to start a new adventure with both of you. I only hope that each of you takes your own dreams and makes them as real as anything.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My academic journey has been filled with many people who have helped me accomplish my dream of writing my dissertation and earning my doctorate.
To Dr. Tom Miller, my major professor, my path through graduate school would have never begun without your mentorship. From my beginning in the CSA program to my entry into the Ph.D., your unwavering encouragement and guidance has been invaluable. You have
challenged me academically but supported my ideas no matter how scattered they may have been at first. You have motivated me to pursue professional goals I never thought imaginable.
To Dr. Elisa Abes, who may never realize the immensely positive impact she made on me in the CSA program. You instilled in me a love of learning, particularly a fascination with student development theory, and introduced me to ideas of theory to practice that I still use to this day. You were the first to show me what a dissertation was and that I too could write one someday. Through the power of reflection, you have taught me to value the importance of being the author of my life.
To my amazing dissertation committee, your support and feedback have been most appreciated. To Dr. Don Dellow, thank you for challenging me and for helping me to make connections between what I learned in class and what I practice as a professional. To Dr. William Young, thank you for your ability to use humor to make the dissertation process less stressful. To Dr. Bob Sullins, thank you for providing your professional expertise during my time in the doctoral program.
To (soon to be Dr.) Megan McIntyre, who provided me with valuable feedback and support. Thank you for teaching me to believe in my ability to write at this level.
To Clara Ohannes, you have always been a consistent support throughout our coursework and dissertation writing process. You helped me see a hope in the unseen.
To Kelly Pearson, you encouraged me to stay focused and finally finish. Thank you for the weekend writing sessions filled with laughter and varying levels of productivity.
To Brittany Sheehy, you have been my cheerleader and confidant. Thank you for helping me navigate this process and always being there to put things into perspective.
To Dr. Yenni Djajalaksana, who had constant patience with my stats questions; thank you for taking the time to help me despite being so far away.
To Dr. Lorie Kittendorf, thank you for your encouragement. Without your advice and support this would not have been possible.
To Ashley Hinton, the first-generation student who inspired the idea behind my dissertation. I have cherished learning from you along the way.
To my past and current colleagues in the USF Department of Chemistry and the Honors College, you have provided an incredibly supportive work environment. I am thankful for the opportunities to grow professionally and am excited to use what I have learned in the future.
To all of my friends and family who I did not mention, your support did not go unnoticed. I would have never made it without each of you.
Finally, to the students who have inspired me in my daily work in higher education, thank you for teaching me that students are the core of any university. Each of you has left an
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ... iv
ABSTRACT ...v
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ...1
Problem Statement ...3
Purpose of the Study ...3
Research Questions ...4
Theoretical Framework ...6
Significance of the Study ...8
Research Design...10
Assumptions ...12
Limitations ...12
Delimitations ...13
Definition of Terms...13
Organization of Remaining Chapters...15
CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...16
Introduction ...16
Student Persistence ...16
Student Engagement ...17
First-Generation College Students ...20
Importance of Student Expectations ...33
Student-faculty Interactions ...42
Summary ...56
CHAPTER THREE METHODS ...58
Introduction ...58
Research Design...59
Population and Sample ...60
Variables ...64
Instrument ...67
Instrument Administration ...69
Reliability and Validity of Data Source ...69
Data Analysis Procedures ...71
CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS ...75
Survey Responses ...76
Sample Population and Demographic Profile ...76
Analysis of Research Questions...77
Analysis of Research Question One ...78
Analysis of Research Question Two ...80
Analysis of Research Question Three ...81
Analysis of Research Questions Four and Six ...82
Analysis of Research Questions Five and Seven ...83
Summary ...85
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...87
Summary of Findings ...87
Findings Regarding Parental Status and Expectations ...88
Findings of Parental Status and Academic Performance ...90
Findings of Expectations and Academic Performance ...92
Limitations ...94
Implications for Practice ...95
Recommendations for Future Research ...96
Concluding Remarks ...99
REFERENCES ...101
APPENDICES ...118
Appendix A: College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ) ...119
Appendix B: CSXQ Permission...123
Appendix C: IRB Letter ...124 ABOUT THE AUTHOR ... End Page
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Cronbach’s Alpha for Experiences with Faculty (National Data) ...70
Table 2: Cronbach’s Alpha for Experiences with Faculty (USF Data Set) ...70
Table 3: Frequency Distribution for FGS and CGS ...76
Table 4: High School Grade Point Average According to Parental Status ...77
Table 5: Experience with Faculty Descriptive Statistics...79
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for Cumulative College GPA by Parental Status ...80
Table 7: Logistic Regression Question 3 Variables in the Equation ...81
Table 8: Correlation of FGS and College GPA ...82
Table 9: Correlation of CGS and College GPA ...83
Table 10: Frequency Distribution for Enrolled and Not Enrolled Students ...84
Table 11: Correlation of FGS and Enrollment Fall 2009 ...85
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Inputs-Environment-Outcomes (I-E-O) Model (Astin, 1985). ...8
Figure 2. Student Headcount Trends USF Tampa (USF Office of Decision Support, 2013) ...61
Figure 3. Enrollment Trends Past 5 Years (USF Office of Decision Support, 2013) ...62
Figure 4. Frequency Distribution for FGS and CGS ...77
ABSTRACT
As the landscape of higher education changes to allow increased access for
first-generation college students (FGS), emerging research should take into account the unique nature of this at-risk population of students (Aspelmeier, Love, McGill, Elliott, & Pierce, 2012). These students tend to be less prepared for the rigors of college coursework (Horn & Bobbitt, 2000; Strayhorn, 2006; Thayer, 2000) and may lack appropriate expectations (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, &Terenzini, 2004). In particular, FGS may struggle with understanding the importance of creating and maintaining relationships with faculty (Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Davis, 2010).
In order to discover any correlation between expectations for experiences with faculty and student success, as measured by cumulative first-year grade point average (GPA) and persistence to the second year of college, this study utilized Astin’s Inputs-Environment-Outcomes (I-E-O) model. Astin’s I-E-O model outlines the relationship between inputs, environment, and outcomes in order to understand student persistence in college (Astin & Sax, 1998; Thurmond & Popkess-Vawter, 2003). Although past researchers focused on the
relationship between these inputs, experiences, and outcomes, the relationship of inputs
(expectations) and outcomes (academic performance) has garnered less attention. Further, many focus on the disconnection between expectations and experiences; however, this study focuses solely on the expectations and its relationship with academic outcomes.
The purpose of this research was to investigate the potential differences between first- and continuing-generation students’ (CGS) expectations for faculty experiences and to discover
College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ) in order to analyze 3,234 first-time in college students’ expectations of faculty experiences during a summer 2008 orientation at a large, public, research intensive, metropolitan university located in West-Central Florida. The study also examined differences between FGS and CGS in first year college academic
performance, while controlling for high school GPA. Further, the study assessed the relationship between FGS and CGS’ expectations for faculty experiences and their academic performance after the first year of college, while controlling for high school GPA. Academic performance after the first year of college was measured as cumulative college grade point average and enrollment in the second year of college. The study analyzed secondary data in order to address seven research questions.
No statistically significant differences were discovered between FGS and CGS’ expectations for faculty experiences. Further, no statistically significant differences existed between FGS and CGS’ academic performance, as measured by cumulative first year college grade point average and enrollment in the second year of college, while controlling for high school GPA. Lastly, weak relationships were discovered between FGS and CGS’ expectations for faculty experiences and their academic performance after the first year of college.
The study did not find statistically significant differences between FGS and CGS’ academic performance, as measured by cumulative college grade point average and enrollment in the second year of college, while controlling for high school grade point average. Although strong relationships between expectations and academic performance were not revealed, these findings suggest that first- and continuing-generation college students may have other indicators or characteristics that impact their expectations. These indicators may correlate to academic performance measures including college GPA and enrollment in the second year.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
The current state of public higher education is a perfect storm of lack of funding, increased access for at-risk populations of students and pressure from state legislatures on universities to produce graduates in a timely measure in order to secure additional funding. In part, because of these pressures, institutions are increasingly interested in how to improve retention and encourage persistence, especially for at-risk populations like first-generation college students. According to a 2010 national study conducted for the U.S. Department of Education, nearly 1,000 institutions received federal dollars aimed at serving approximately 200,000 first-generation, minority, and other at-risk students (Chaney, 2010). In 2008, these programs cost over $264 million in federal funds. This renewed federal attention to
first-generation college students (FGS) as an at-risk population follows over three decades of research related to the unique needs of first-generation students (Aspelmeier, Love, McGill, Elliott, & Pierce, 2012). The research related to FGS determined that this population tends to view college as transactional (degree attainment) and may lack understanding of the role that the campus community and involvement play in persistence towards degree (Dungy, Rissmeyer, & Roberts, 2005). In particular, these students may not understand the crucial role faculty interaction may play in positive academic outcomes (Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Davis, 2010; Endo & Harpel, 1982; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005).
being met in terms of on-campus experiences. These expectations may be particularly important for first-generation students as they are at an informational disadvantage because their parents have no college experiences to impart. Their expectations, then, may be underdeveloped or unrealistic. These expectations may provide insight into how some students, holding constant for innate academic ability, may be more likely than their peers to succeed.
Because of this information deficiency, much time and money have been spent building academic support programs for this at-risk population. These programs tend to work toward closing the informational gap and have paid particular attention to the important role of positive student-faculty interactions. This attention to interaction is supported, in part, by work from Pascarella et al. (2004), who determined that classroom experiences of FGS were indeed different in part because FGS placed more value on student-faculty experiences than their continuing-generation peers. These interactions, therefore, are an area of increasing research interest (Dungy et al., 2005). However, in order to appropriately address questions regarding the relevance of student-faculty interaction, it may be useful to first understand at-risk students’ expectations and how these directly affect outcomes.
Specific to this research study, FGS may view the role of faculty and the importance of faculty interactions differently than their continuing-generation peers and this may impact
persistence and success after the first year. Therefore, this research study focused on areas of the College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ) that will identify whether first-generation student expectations of their experiences with faculty were important factors that shaped their commitment to degree attainment.
Problem Statement
Researchers have long studied the characteristics and attrition risks associated with first-generation college students. However, there appears to be a shortage of research examining the expectations of this population of students and whether or not a relationship exists between their expectations of experiences with faculty and the students’ success during their first year in college. Although many characteristics and risk factors have been recognized, few studies have identified whether first-generation students’ background plays any part in the formation of expectations of this first-year experience. Further research is necessary to determine whether or not these expectations influence and/or relate to increased interactions with faculty, as well as their relationship to student persistence. However, the proposed study investigated a correlation between what students expecting the faculty interaction or experience to be and whether or not the expectations – regardless of actual experiences – contributed to students’ subsequent success and persistence to the second year.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this investigation was to determine if a relationship exists between first-generation college students’ expectations for faculty experiences and their success, as measured by grade point average after the first year and persistence to the second year of college. The study examined whether or not students’ expectations for faculty experiences differ based on having a parent who graduated from college. While establishing if differences exist between continuing-generation and first-generation college students is important in understanding the impact of expectations, the study focused mainly on first-generation college students’
expectations for experiences with faculty. Further, the study investigated the possible connection between students’ expectations for student-faculty experiences and their persistence (as
measured by enrollment in year two) and success (as measured by first-year grade point average).
Relevant literature suggests expectations impact motivation (Geiger & Cooper, 1995; Smith & Wertlieb, 2005). Much of this literature, however, focuses on the disconnect between students’ expectations and actual college experience (Bank, Biddle, & Slavings, 1992;
Brinkworth, McCaan, Matthews, & Nordstrom, 2009; Crisp, Palmer, Turnball, Nettelbeck, Ward, LeCouteur, Sarris, Sterlan, & Schneider, 2009; Miller, Bender, Schuh, & Associates, 2005; Smith & Wertlieb, 2005; Stern, 1966). The present study diverges from this norm by focusing instead on the direct connections between expectations and outcomes.
This study explored the impact of first-generation status on expectations, specifically expectations regarding faculty experiences. If being a FGS is related to attrition and poor
academic performance, and if levels of expectation are also related to first-generation status, then first-generation students with higher levels of expectation regarding faculty experiences may be more likely to obtain positive outcomes, including increased grade point average (GPA) and increased rates of persistence to year two. Understanding this correlation may allow
administrators and instructors to facilitate more realistic student expectations and address the possible disconnect between student expectations and experiences, which may result in an increase in positive outcomes related to attrition and GPA.
Research Questions
This study answered questions in order to inform the body of literature on student expectations particularly those of FGS. First, this research sought to determine potential significant differences between first- and continuing-generation students’ expectations for
first- and continuing-generation students’ academic performance, while controlling for high school GPA. Lastly, the study examined the relationship between expectations of FGS regarding faculty experiences, and student success after their first year in college as measured by end of year one GPA and persistence to the second year, while controlling for high school GPA.
1. Prior to entering college, are there significant differences between first- and continuing-generation students’ expectations for experiences with faculty?
2. Is there a significant difference between and continuing-generation students in first-year academic performance, as measured by college grade point average, while
controlling for high school grade point average?
3. Is there a significant difference between and continuing-generation students in first-year academic performance, as measured by persistence to the second first-year of college, while controlling for high school grade point average?
4. What is the relationship between first-generation students’ pre-matriculation expectations for experiences with faculty and their first-year academic performance, as measured by college grade point average, while controlling for high school grade point average? 5. What is the relationship between first-generation students’ pre-matriculation expectations
for experiences with faculty and their first-year academic performance, as measured by persistence to the second year of college, while controlling for high school grade point average?
6. What is the relationship between continuing-generation students’ pre-matriculation expectations for experiences with faculty and their first-year academic performance, as measured by college grade point average, while controlling for high school grade point average?
7. What is the relationship between continuing-generation students’ pre-matriculation expectations for experiences with faculty and their first-year academic performance, as measured by persistence to the second year of college, while controlling for high school grade point average?
Theoretical Framework
Many theories of involvement (Astin, 1999), engagement (Tinto, 1975, 1993), student expectations (Miller, 2005) and persistence inform the present study; however, the Inputs-Environment-Outcomes Model (I-E-O) (Astin, 1970a, 1970b, 1977, 1985, 1991, 1993; Astin & Antonio, 2012) provided the theoretical framework (see Figure 1). Astin and Antonio (2012) highlighted the importance of the I-E-O model to assess why some institutions have more students who persist to graduation than others. The key purpose for using the I-E-O model for assessment of outcomes is to make sure that, in addition to understanding the environment, researchers also consider student inputs (Astin & Antonio, 2012).
Astin and Antonio (2012) defined outcomes, inputs, and environments in the following way:
Outcomes…refers to the ‘talents’ we are trying to develop in our educational program; inputs refers to those personal qualities the student brings initially to the educational program (including the student’s initial level of developed talent at the time of entry); and the environment refers to the student’s actual experiences during the educational
program. (p. 19)
In the present study, inputs may include student demographics, expectations for
Environment may include experiences or interactions with faculty members and outcomes may include grade point average and persistence to the second year of college.
The basic tenets of the model inform the present study because first-generation college students begin college with a different set of inputs and tend to be at risk compared to their continuing-generation peers. It allows flexibility for researchers to assess single variables, such as high school or college grade point average, as well as various experiences, such as interactions with faculty (Astin & Antonio, 2012). Many times, researchers will take into account the impact of inputs (i.e., student expectations) and their direct connection to environment (student-faculty interactions). However, the present study concentrated on the potential connection between inputs (expectations, FGS status, and high school grade point average) and outcomes (first-year grade point average and persistence to the second year of college) regardless of actual
experiences/environment. Therefore, this research examined how first-generation students’ expectations of student-faculty interactions contribute to the outcomes of grade point average after the first year and persistence to the second year.
Previous research in the field provides a great deal of support for utilization of the I-E-O model as a framework to assess student success or persistence in college through understanding the connection between inputs and outcomes (Astin & Sax, 1998; House, 1999; Kelly, 1996; Kittendorf, 2012; Thurmond & Popkess-Vawter, 2003; Thurmond, Wambach, Connors, & Frey, 2002). For instance, Kelly (1996) concluded that “the longitudinal nature of Astin’s I-E-O model and the general longitude theory of student retention...[and]…effects of early measures of academic performance and social integration were also important indicators of long-term
persistence” (p. 17). Thurmond and Popkess-Vawter (2003) noted that “Astin’s (1993) Input-Environment-Outcome (I-E-O) model promises a valuable alternative view of
evaluating…through collection of inputs and environmental information to more fully explain traditional unitary assessments of educational outcomes,” though they cautioned that researchers who use the model should pay special attention to clearly defining each tenet of the model
(inputs-environment-outcomes) for the purpose of their studies (para. 50). Specific to the present study, Kittendorf (2012) used the model to focus “on the relationship between the inputs of student expectations and major, and the outcomes of GPA and persistence” (p. 19).
The I-E-O model has been referenced widely in analyzing the relationship between inputs on both environment and outcomes. However, many focus on the relationships between all three components of the model. While, these relationships are important, the present study did not address environment and only considered the influence of inputs (first-generation college students’ expectations) on outcomes (college student grade point average and rate of persistence).
Figure 1. Inputs-Environment-Outcomes (I-E-O) Model (Astin, 1985). Significance of the Study
Due to the ever-changing face of higher education, which includes a growing population of first-generation college students, there is an increased need for research that focuses on their
Inputs
(student expectations, first-generation status) EnvironmentOutcomes
(GPA, persistence)characteristics as well as what makes them at risk. This study adds to research on students’ expectations and its relationship to student success in college. It not only supplements existing literature and future studies, but also informs the practice of administrators in the field who design first-year programming such as first-year student success courses, peer mentor programs, designated year student advisors, week of welcome, integrated core curriculum, and first-year common reading programs. If the research identifies that this group has unique
expectations related to student-faculty interactions, then materials used to recruit students to improve institutional fit could be modified to create reasonable expectations. It may also help in faculty development programs since this research will focus on first-generation students’
expectations for faculty experiences.
If this research identified what first-generation students expect in terms of faculty interactions during their first year, institutions can do a better job of meeting these expectations. Therefore, since first-generation college students are already at risk of not being successful and are at a higher risk of dropping out, the ability to have a better understanding of first-generation college student expectations was an important goal of the study.
Additionally, previous research indicates that pre-college characteristics are an essential component of identifying what makes a successful student. For instance, Ishitani (2006) maintained that “high school academic attributes were pivotal in projecting the odds of timely college graduation among first-generation students” (p. 881). Students come to college with a wide variety of pre-college characteristics; therefore, researchers and practitioners must become more informed of their ultimate effects on student persistence to graduation (Ishitani, 2006). As such, the present study took into account background characteristics, such as high school grade
point average of first-generation college students, and examined a connection between them and expectations of expectations of faculty experiences. Further, Pike and Kuh (2005) argued:
Helping those who are first in their families to go to college is challenging for many reasons, one of the more important of which is many first-generation students do not engage in the wide range of academic and social activities that the research shows are associated with success in college. (p. 292)
Therefore, the present study added to the research regarding first-generation students’ expectations for experiences in college, specifically those with faculty, and their relationship to student persistence to the second year and success (as measured by grade point average) after the first year.
Research Design
This research was a quantitative, correlational study and utilized secondary data analysis. The data have been collected from students who responded to the College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ) in the summer of 2008 prior to their beginning at the University of South Florida (USF), Tampa Campus. The University of South Florida was founded in 1956 and is a large, public, research active institution accredited by the Commission on Colleges of Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The University of South Florida system is comprised of three institutions: USF Tampa, USF Sarasota-Manatee and USF St. Petersburg. These
institutions are separately accredited through the Commission on the Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (University of South Florida, 2013). The study utilized CSXQ data from participants enrolled as first-time in college (FTIC), USF Tampa Campus students.
The Division of Student Affairs, in partnership with the Office of Orientation, collected the CSXQ data while the Student Affairs Planning, Evaluation, and Assessment Department at the USF provided additional institutional data. Institutional data items such as college grade point average after the first year of college, high school grade point average, and enrollment in the Fall Semester of year two, were utilized in this study in order to evaluate persistence and success. The Office of New Student Connections, an entity within the Division of Student Affairs, administered and collected the CSXQ instrument with the assistance of orientation team leaders during summer orientation sessions. In order to ensure the confidentiality of students who completed the CSXQ, the Director of Student Affairs Planning, Evaluation and Assessment oversaw the scoring and coding of the collected data so that individual students could not be identified.
The study focused on students’ expectations of faculty experiences based on responses to the CSXQ prior to beginning college. The study measured whether or not there was a
relationship between students’ expectations and students’ success, as measured by two outcomes: grade point average after the first year of college and students’ ability to persist to year two.
In order to understand and measure first-generation college students’ expectations, this study examined data from the CSXQ regarding students’ experiences with faculty. The CSXQ identifies these expectations for experiences with faculty with items such as
• asking instructor for information regarding course; • discussion of academic programs or course selection; • discussion of ideas for papers or projects;
• discussions regarding career plans; • socialization with faculty; and
• instructor feedback on performance and expectation to work on a research project with faculty.
The study attempted to answer the research questions through a quantitative secondary data analysis using descriptive statistics including measures of central tendency and variability as well as second order Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson r), second order point-biserial correlation, logistic regression, analysis of variance (ANOVA), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and a multivariate analysis (MANOVA).
Assumptions
1. Students have responded to the CSXQ truthfully and responses were representative of how they expected to interact with faculty members or things they expected to experience with faculty.
2. First-generation college students are an at-risk population with unique needs. 3. Experience with faculty members is directly related to success in and out of the
classroom and leads to student engagement; therefore, students who expect to interact with faculty are more successful and persist to graduation.
4. Grade point average and rate of persistence are fair and standard measurements of student success.
Limitations
1. The age of the data may be considered a limitation of the study. The data were collected during the summer of 2008 and at the time of study completion the data were six years old, consequently there may be difficulty generalizing the findings.
2. The CSXQ is comprised of self-reported data. Participants may have answered the CSXQ with what they believed the administrators of the survey wanted them to report or
what they believed to be the most socially acceptable response. Additionally, participants may not have put sufficient thought into their responses.
3. This study utilized secondary data. The researcher did not have control over the data collection process, as the data were collected by another organization.
Delimitations
1. This study was delimited to the CSXQ data set collected in summer 2008. This data set was chosen because it offered a comprehensive picture of incoming students’
expectations. Also, a large number of students reported a university identification number, which linked students’ CSXQ to their academic records. This is important for the reproduction of this study with future cohorts of students.
2. This study only included those students who, in addition to completing the CSXQ during the summer 2008 orientation, also offered their university identification numbers, thus permitting researchers to associate responses with their institution student records. 3. The study was delimited to only University of South Florida Tampa Campus students.
This impacted the external validity, as the results are not as easily generalized students at other institutions.
Definition of Terms
The following terms have been defined for clarification of use throughout the study: Continuing-generation students (CGS). Students who have one or both parents who have attended or graduated from college. These students may also be referred to as second-generation college students by other researchers.
Faculty experiences. Also referred to as interactions with faculty. These interactions are typically described in terms of quality and quantity of the experience, and can be viewed on a
continuum. For example, a less significant experience would include a student approaching a faculty member after class for help; a more significant experience would include a student interacting with a faculty member on a research project.
First-time in college (FTIC). Undergraduate, degree-seeking students who have never taken a college class prior to beginning their degree program (with the exception of high school dual enrollment credits) or have not previously been enrolled in a postsecondary institution as a degree-seeking student. Typically, these students have never experienced any college level coursework or attended any coursework at the university level.
Full-time students. Students who were enrolled in 12 or more credit hours in each semester at the beginning of the term, as based on institutional data.
First-generation college student (FGS). Those students for whom neither parent attended college or completed a college degree.
First-year persistence rate. Percentage of first-year students who re-enroll for their second year of college.
Grade Point Average (GPA). Average of all grades received for courses completed at an institution during a semester. Typically these are grades measured on a 4.0 scale.
Persistence. The ability and motivation of a student to remain in college from
matriculation through degree completion (Berger & Lyon, 2005). For the purpose of this study, persistence is focused on ability and motivation of a student to re-enroll in the second year of college.
Student expectations. Defined as the pre-college beliefs of students relating to what they think they will experience in college (Miller et al., 2005).
Organization of Remaining Chapters
In what follows, Chapter Two will provide a review of the literature concerning the at-risk characteristics of first-generation college students, the value of understanding student expectations and how these expectations relate to student persistence. Also, Chapter Two will outline the importance and types of student-faculty interactions as a component of student engagement. In particular, the literature explores the correlation between expectations of
student-faculty interactions and outcomes, such as persistence to the second year. Chapter Three provides information regarding the population and sample, variables, instrument administration, methodology, and the data set used in this study. Chapter Four presents the analysis and results in relation to the research questions. Finally, Chapter Five reviews the findings of the study, describes the limitations and implications for practice, and make recommendations for future research.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction
The following literature review includes sections on student persistence and engagement, first-generation college students, the importance of student expectations, and student-faculty interactions. The information presented in this review provides the background information that forms the foundation for this study. The review of literature demonstrates how this research contributes to the current body of knowledge on first-generation college students, student expectations and student-faculty experiences.
Student Persistence
The ability for students to persist to graduation has been a concern of higher education researchers and administrators for almost forty years. The result of ensuing research “has been an ever more sophisticated understanding of the complex web of events that shape student
leaving and persistence” (Tinto, 2006, p. 1). As student access to higher education has increased, the diversity of the student population, the risk of completion and the complexity of issues
related to persistence to graduation for this group of students have also steadily grown. For instance, Tinto (2006) suggested that one population of students that will be increasingly at risk is “academically under-prepared low-income students” (p. 13). This is particularly important since the majority of first-generation students are of lower income levels and academically under-prepared backgrounds. Kuh (2008) noted how research on student persistence impacts not only the current literature but also, and perhaps more importantly, the value of informing the
institutions, faculty, and staff who need to promote student persistence. Despite the large body of research, much of it fails to influence those who work with students daily (i.e., faculty, staff, administrators) in order to help students become engaged with their institution (Kuh, 2008). In order to address the concern of attrition in higher education one must examine the factors that impact students’ ability to persist. Persistence to graduation in a successful manner has been connected to a student’s ability to become engaged within the institution (Tinto, 1975, 1999; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008). Engagement occurs when students have meaningful experiences on campus (Tinto, 1999; Kuh & Hu, 2001), build positive relationships (Kuh & Hu, 2001), become involved (Astin, 1975, 1984, 1999; Astin & Sax, 1998; Tinto 1975, 1993), and have increased interactions with faculty (Kuh & Hu, 2001; Komarraju, Musulkin, & Bhattacharya, 2010). Student engagement has been shown to correlate with academic
development and success (Kuh et al., 2008). Persistence, student engagement and success can also be affected by pre-college characteristics (Astin, 2006; Miller, 2007; Miller & Herreid, 2008) such as student expectations of college being met (Miller, 2007; Miller & Herreid, 2008; Miller & Murphy, 2011; Miller et al., 2005; Miller, Kuh, Paine, & Associates, 2006).
Student Engagement
Although actual college experiences are not the focus of the present research study, in order to understand the importance of student expectations for engagement, specifically
engagement with faculty, it is critical to understand the literature surrounding engagement itself. Research on student engagement suggests that the first year of college is an integral part of student engagement, success, and persistence. Barefoot (2000) reviewed the components of what is considered the “first year experience” and determined that, among the most important components of a successful first year, “increasing faculty-to-student interaction, especially out
of class; increasing student involvement and time on campus; linking the curriculum and the cocurriculum; increasing academic expectations and levels of academic engagement; assisting students who have insufficient academic preparation for college” might lead to increased student success (Barefoot, 2000, p. 14). Like Barefoot (2000); Padgett, Johnson, and Pascarella (2012) considered these students’ first year vital to retention and concluded that “engaging them immediately upon entry into college, not only enhances the likelihood of successful student development, but increases the likelihood of their academic success, positive social integration, and retention through college” (p. 262). Therefore, the current study focuses on the first year of college and the correlation between student expectations prior to college and their impact on the critical first-year.
However, the approaches to improve student success in the first-year have varied and there are many theories related to a student’s ability to persist, become involved or academically or socially engaged within an institution, Tinto, Kuh, and Astin provide much of the discipline’s discussion on these topics. Tinto (1975) examined the reasons why students dropped out and created one of the first theoretical models for examining student persistence. Tinto (1999) emphasized that there needs to be a movement away from simple classes that merely addresses the basic needs of first-year students and toward a more comprehensive approach of engaging students during their first-year of college. Tinto (1999) also stated that the first year “should be a year of inclusion that promotes the important ideal that all persons can and should have a voice in the construction of knowledge” (p. 9).
Although student engagement has been studied at various institutions (as it relates to success in the first year and persistence to graduation), some have studied the connection between differences in institutional type and the practices that foster student success. Kuh et al.
(2008) sought to understand the process by which institutions of higher education were fostering student success. The researchers collected data from 18 colleges and universities with a diverse group of respondents (racial/ethnic). The study confirmed that student engagement showed positive relationships to academic outcomes in areas such as grades after the first-year and persistence to the second year (Kuh et al., 2008).
Like Tinto and Kuh, Astin’s models offer important insights about involvement,
engagement, and success. As noted in Chapter One, the theoretical framework and model for the study is Astin’s Inputs-Environment-Outcomes (I-E-O) Model (Figure 1). One of the
foundational theories of student engagement defined by Astin (1999) described student
engagement as a theory of involvement. Astin (1999) stated, “student involvement refers to the quantity and quality of the physical and psychological energy that students invest in the college experience…the greater the student’s involvement in college, the greater will be the amount of student learning and personal development” (p. 528-529). Astin (1999) asserted that, in conjunction with the student’s involvement, it is the responsibility of the institution of higher education to create opportunities for programming that promote student involvement. Further, Tinto and Pusser (2006) suggested that “involvement during that [first] year serves as the foundation upon which subsequent affiliations and engagements are built” (p. 6).
Student engagement is an overarching theme in the literature. The importance of the student-faculty relationship is also critical to student persistence to graduation. Although research has been conducted in general regarding student expectations and persistence to graduation, there appears to be limited research regarding first-generation students and
expectations. Therefore, the present study contributed to this gap in the body of knowledge on first-generation students.
First-Generation College Students
The prior review of the literature provides the background regarding student engagement and persistence. It is also important to consider how student engagement and persistence is connected when examining different populations of students on campus, particularly those that are at-risk. One such population that has been considered at-risk is first-generation college students. This section reviews the literature on first-generation students and presents information pertaining to the characteristics, academic preparation, risk factors, expectations of college, transition into the college experience and risk factors related to success and persistence.
Although it can be challenging to identify and establish accurate counts of FGS, the enrollment data demonstrate a definite surge in this population (Davis, 2010). First-generation college students are typically defined as having parents who have never attended college (Billson & Terry, 1982; Choy, 2001; Choy, Horn, Nunez, & Chen, 2000; Hsiao, 1992; Ward, Siegel, & Davenport, 2012). In general, these students have characteristics that put them at a disadvantage when they enter college (Bui, 2002; Davis, 2010; Hsiao, 1992; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005;
Purswell, Yazedjian, & Toews, 2008; Strayhorn, 2006; Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996; Ward et al., 2012).
Lohfink and Paulsen (2005) stated that these students are “lacking the intergenerational benefits of information about college [which] also makes participation in college a particularly formidable task for first-generation students” (p. 409). In addition, Hsiao (1992) suggested that first-generation college students encounter obstacles on their path to degree completion such as “conflicting obligations, false expectations, and lack of preparation or support are among the factors that may hinder their success” (p. 2). Davis (2010) stated “first-generation college students are unfamiliar with the culture of college and, to one degree or another, unfamiliar with
what it means to be a college student” (p. 29). Ward et al. (2012) agreed that this cultural capital is gained while attending college and parents of FGS students may not be able to properly provide access to this knowledge. Given these disadvantages, first-generation college students are less likely to complete a degree than students whose parents have attended college (Billson & Terry, 1982; Davis, 2010; Ishitani, 2003; Pike & Kuh, 2005; Terenzini et al., 1996).
First-generation college students can be described through various background characteristics and may be demographically different than their continuing-generation peers. Terenzini et al. (1996) explained that in most cases they are:
more likely to have…weaker cognitive skills…lower degree aspirations, and are less involved with peers and teachers in high school…expect to take longer to complete their degree programs, and report receiving less encouragement from their parents to attend college. (p. 16)
This population of students has characteristics that may be unique, but may also place them at increased risk for attrition.
For instance, Bui (2002) focused on the background characteristics of first-generation college students, their reasons for pursuing higher education, and their actual experience during the first-year of college. Through a small, quantitative study, first-generation students were compared to students whose parents have attended college. The first-generation college students in the study were notably demographically different and “more likely to be ethnic minority students, to come from a lower socioeconomic background, and to speak a language other than English at home” (Bui, 2002, p. 9). These demographic differences impacted the first-generation college students’ reasons for attending college, and were noted in responses that included
reasons are in addition to FGS having “greater fear of failing in college, worry about financial aid, and feel they have to put more time into studying” (Bui, 2002, pp. 10).
Furthermore, not only does this group of students face different risks based on pre-college characteristics, they also encounter increased challenges in the unfamiliar academic world once they matriculate (Terenzini et al., 1996). These students were not only more likely to perceive their campus environment differently but they also have a tendency to participate in the campus community in ways that were not as likely to be linked to success and persistence. Terenzini et al. (1996) summarized this by stating:
Overall, the picture suggests these students come less well prepared and with more nonacademic demands on them, and they enter a world where they are less likely to experience many of the conditions that other research indicates are positively related to persistence, performance, and learning. (p. 18)
Therefore, research relating to this at-risk population of students is critical for practitioners and future researchers who hope to study and understand student persistence and expectations.
This growing research has called attention to some of the unique risk factors associated with the persistence of first-generation college students (Hsiao, 1992), which is a population that has increased over the past decade as higher education has become more accessible (Bowen, Kurzweil, & Tobin, 2005; Davis, 2010; Housel & Harvey, 2009; Saenz, Hurtado, Barrera, Wolf, & Yeung, 2007; Strayhorn, 2006). While first-generation students have been positively
impacted by increased access to higher education, their ability to persist throughout their college experience is often hindered by a number of disadvantages, including socioeconomic status and lack of appropriate pre-college coursework (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). Therefore, Ishitani (2006) reaffirmed that it is critical that educators become more cognizant of the pre-college
characteristics within this population of students and “of the prolonging effects these precollege characteristics have on students’ time to degree behavior” (p. 881).
The additional disadvantages faced by FGS, which are present above and beyond the challenges they share with CGS, can compound their ability to persist to graduation. Being female (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005), having a lower socioeconomic status (Bradbury & Mather, 2009; Bui, 2002; Choy, 2001; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005), being part of a minority race (Bui, 2002), lacking support from family and/or peers, (Bradbury & Mather, 2009; Choy, 2001; Hsiao, 1992; Terenzini et al., 1996; Thayer, 2000;), as well as having ill-formed or uninformed expectations about college (Hsiao, 1992; Thayer, 2000) impact these first-generation college students’ ability to persist. Therefore, first-generation students “inhabit intersecting sites of oppression based on race, class, and gender” (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005, p. 418), which creates even more challenges for first-generation college students in their journey to degree completion.
Among the demographic characteristics noted earlier, socioeconomic status has been recognized as one of the most powerful indicators of first-generation college students’ ability to persist to graduation (Bradbury & Mather, 2009; Bui, 2002; Choy, 2001; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005; Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012). For instance, Lohfink and Paulsen (2005) suggested that “lower-income first-generation students are not only
disadvantaged by their parents’ lack of experience with and information about college, but also by other social and economic characteristics that constrain their educational opportunities” (p. 418). First-generation students’ inability to utilize this cultural and financial capital impacts their ability to persist (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). First-generation college students from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds tend to have more disadvantages, have additional financial strain, and may attend college part-time and/or work while attending college, thus impacting how they
choose to engage with their campus environment (Bui, 2002; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005; Terenzini et al., 1996). However, Hertel (2002) discovered that FGS were not necessarily working more than their CGS peers, though he did confirm that FGS struggle more to adjust socially to campus life. Further, “the gap in performance between first-generation and
continuing-generation students is, at least in part, a product of the predominantly middle-class cultural norms of independence that are institutionalized in many American colleges and
universities” (Stephens et al., 2012, p. 1193). These studies confirm the idea that first-generation college students are an at-risk population who enter college many times from different cultural backgrounds and from lower socioeconomic statuses, thus compounding their disadvantages and placing them more at risk. However, Davis (2010) cautions researchers to be careful to not identify all FGS as also being from a lower-income, as this is not always the case. In fact, it is important to distinguish between the concerns of disadvantaged groups of students and what is unique about being a first-generation student (Davis, 2010).
First-generation college students are also distinct in terms of their lack of information from their parents (who have not attended college) regarding the college experience (Hicks, 2003; Padgett et al., 2012; Pike & Kuh, 2005; Ward et al., 2012; Westbrook & Scott, 2012). Therefore, first-generation students’ expectations regarding college may indeed differ from their continuing-generation peers and make FGS less likely to be engaged as “an indirect result of being first in one’s family to go to college and are more directly a function of lower educational aspirations and living off campus” (Pike & Kuh, 2005, p. 290). Misinformation about college experiences and unrealistic expectations, however, are also a trait of continuing-generation students. For instance, first- and continuing-generation students have common misperceptions
about what to expect from college faculty (e.g., that faculty members teach study skills), or they have a limited view of the intensity of college coursework (Hicks, 2003).
As a way of understanding first-generation students, Padgett et al. (2012) concentrated on the influence of parental education on “cognitive and psychosocial outcomes” after the first year of college (p. 259). They discovered that first-generation students scored significantly lower in relation to literacy activities and writing. Further, they noted “this finding supports aspects of cultural capital theory that college-educated parents transmit skills, attitudes, and interests to their children about the importance of engaging in educationally meaningful activities such as reading and writing” (Padgett et al., 2012, p. 260). This disadvantage extended to a lack of openness to diversity and psychological well-being as compared to their continuing-generation peers. Recent findings determined that “within the first academic year in college,
first-generation students begin to lag behind in cognitive and psychosocial development” (Padgett et al., 2012, p. 262).
Another comparative study of first-generation and continuing-generation students by Purswell et al. (2008) concluded that students with parents who had some exposure to the college experience could relay some information to their students about the college experience and, thus, impact students’ academic behaviors. Further, Purswell et al. (2008) was consistent with
previous researchers’ findings that first-generation college students enter college with a different set of intentions for experiences based on their background, life experiences and parental
educational level, which may provide insight to the challenges that they face. For example, a student whose parent emphasizes the importance of building relationships with faculty through participation in class because they too have experienced college may have a positive impact on their student’s academic behavior (Purswell et al., 2008). Gibbons and Borders (2010) also
confirmed that even prior to entering college, first-generation college students were more likely to have positive expectations of outcomes in college, more perceived barriers and lower self-efficacy than their first-generation college peers. However, Westbrook and Scott (2012)
discovered that even when first-generation college students have little parental support, they may still have high perceived self-efficacy.
In addition to demographic differences, first-generation college students’ academic experiences in high school find them less prepared to enter college-level work (Horn & Bobbitt, 2000; Strayhorn 2006; Terenzini et al., 1996; Thayer, 2000). When compared to CGS, FGS have been found to be less academically prepared to do college level work (Horn & Bobbitt, 2000; Chaney, Muraskin, Cahalan, & Goodwin, 1998; Strayhorn 2006; Terenzini et al., 1996;
Warburton, Burgarin, Nunez, & Carroll, 2001; York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991) and “entered college with lower reading, math and critical thinking skills” (Terenzini et al., 1996, p. 18). First-generation college students are likely to have lower scores on standardized tests (Terenzini et al., 1996) or have not even attempted to take the standardized tests or college entrance exams at all (Warburton et al., 2001).
However, some caution is needed when using precollege characteristics as a way to predict college success and persistence. Although some research suggests that high school grade point average is seen as connected to future success in college coursework and persistence throughout college (Geiser & Santelices, 2007), there is significant debate as to the validity of predictive measures such as high school grade point average and SAT scores in college admission (Berry & Sackett, 2009).
The transition from high school to college presents a unique challenge for first-generation college students and they tend to have a more difficult time with it (Terenzini et al., 1996).
First-generation college students typically experience the same transitory issues that their continuing-generation peers face; however, they also have the added challenges of the cultural shift felt by many in their attempt at educational mobility (Choy, 2001; Davis, 2010; Pascarella et al., 2004).
While pre-college characteristics, determinants, and expectations are important, actual experiences in college also have significant impacts on persistence. Pike and Kuh (2005) further noted that “surprisingly little is known about their college experiences” (p. 276). Bui (2002) showed that “first-generation college students express greater fear of failing in college, worry more about financial aid, and feel they have to put more time into studying” (p. 10). The present study adds to the body of knowledge in this area of first-generation college students’
expectations of college experiences, particularly their expectations of relationships/interactions with faculty.
An increasing number of first-generation college students work while attending college (Bradbury & Mather, 2009; Pascarella et al., 2004; Terenzini et al., 1996; Ward et al., 2012) and many will attend college part-time (Choy, 2001; Pascarella et al., 2004; Ward et al., 2012). Pascarella et al. (2004) suggested that “the added work responsibilities of first-generation students may in part explain the fact that, despite a lighter academic load, first-generation
students had significantly lower cumulative grades than similar students whose parents were both college graduates” (p. 277). Demographic differences of FGS indicate that they tend to
experience college differently. Pascarella et al. (2004) concluded that their additional commitments outside of the institution, combined with their lower levels of involvement in extracurricular and campus activities in their second year of college, contributed to less
involvement and interaction among peers in their third year of college. FGS differed in not only the number of credit hours they took and the amount of time they worked on their courses, but
also in that they were less likely to live on-campus as compared to second-generation students (Pascarella et al., 2004).
However, there appears to be conditional effects including the first-generation students’ likelihood engaging at a higher level in their institutions’ social and peer networks due to their limited time they have to allocate to these activities (Pascarella et al., 2004). Pascarella et al. (2004) argued that “first-generation students perhaps benefit more from their academic experiences than other students because these experiences act in a compensatory manner and thus contribute comparatively greater incremental increases in first-generation students’ stock of cultural capital” (p. 280).
Unfortunately, the one area in which Pascarella et al. (2004) indicated a significant difference was the first-generation students’ lack of second- and third-year degree plans, which may be attributed to their inability to realize the need for future degree attainability and its connection with social mobility. As a result Pascarella et al. (2004) concluded that
first-generation students would benefit from increased engagement through academic experiences. In a comparative study of first- and continuing-generation students, Pike and Kuh (2005) outlined additional key components of the college success of first-generation students. They confirm the findings of Pascarella et al. (2004) and stated that first-generation students were “less engaged overall and less likely to successfully integrate diverse college experiences; they perceived the college environment as less supportive and reported making less progress in their learning and intellectual development” (p. 289). Pascarella et al. (2004) noted that the first-generation students’ lack of involvement may be due to their lack of understanding as to why they should be involved. Similarly, Pike and Kuh (2005) concluded that “compared to second-generation college students, they have less tacit knowledge of and fewer experiences with college campuses and related activities, behaviors, and role models” (p. 290). One important
difference suggested by Pike and Kuh (2005) was that lower levels of engagement and academic achievement may not be strictly related to status as first-generation students, but may be
connected to residence on campus and lower overall academic ambitions.
Additional findings by Woosley and Shepler (2011) supported earlier research by Pascarella et al. (2004) and Pike and Kuh (2005):
Results support the theoretical understanding of students’ enrollment experience and may add to the literature by demonstrating that early integration, which influences persistence decisions, may function much like student’s longitudinal adjustment-to-college life process. Results further indicate that first-generation students share similarities to non-first generation students in terms of which variables should be considered in future research settings. (p. 710)
Thus, first-generation students may have different experiences than their continuing- generation peers; however, some of the struggles experienced during the first year may be the same as their peers. Because of the importance of early integration, the first year is integral to ensuring that first-generation students become engaged; therefore, the present study examined success after the first year.
Strayhorn (2006) suggested that the relationship between first-generation college students and their ability to integrate or become engaged with the university is more complex than one may think. They found that “academic integration was positively related to academic
achievement and social integration was negatively related to college grades, although the latter was nonsignificant and therefore unremarkable” (pp. 98-99).
In a comparative study of first- and continuing-generation students, Aspelmeier et al. (2012) also concluded that first-generation college students share similar “predictors of academic
adjustment”; however, they found that it is unclear what exactly causes a first-generation college student to be at-risk (p. 778). They noted the importance of paying close attention to this
population of students in order to understand what helps them be successful (Aspelmeier et al., 2012). As an example, they suggested that even if a first-generation student was not considered at-risk upon arrival at college and was “highly motivated and confident in their own abilities”, they would likely still require a different set of services to assist them in persisting to graduation (Aspelmeier et al., 2012, p. 778).
First-generation college students’ ability to interact with faculty has been connected to first-to-second year persistence (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). However, research indicates that first-generation college students tend to spend less time interacting with faculty (Murphy & Hicks, 2006; Terenzini et al., 1996). Additionally, these students may lack the confidence to initiate an interaction with a faculty member, which further impacts the frequency and quality of their interactions with faculty (Padgett et al., 2012). Although many factors correlate to the ability of FGS to persist in college, navigating the university system and understanding the importance of faculty in relation to their academic journey are two areas that have been shown to help these students become more engaged with the institution and persist to graduation.
To fully understand the pre-matriculation expectations of first-generation college students, it is important to review the literature related to first-generation college student experiences and outcomes. Not only do first-generation college students differ both
academically and socially prior to college and experience their first year of college differently, but they also have differing academic and social outcomes (Horn, 1998; Padgett et al., 2012; Pascarella et al., 2004; Pike & Kuh, 2005; Strayhorn, 2006). Strayhorn (2006) noted that “first-generation status was a significant predictor of cumulative grades in college” (p. 101). Similarly,
Pike and Kuh (2005) concluded that “first-generation students were less engaged overall and less likely to successfully integrate diverse college experiences; they perceived the college
environment as less supportive and reported making less progress in their learning and intellectual development” (p. 289). They tend to have a lower first-year grade point average (Riehl, 1994) and normally struggle to persist into the second year of college (Inman & Mayes, 1999; Ishitani, 2003; Riehl, 1994). The rate that first-generation college students persist to graduation tends to be lower than that of their continuing-generation peers (Horn, 1998; Ishitani, 2006; Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Riehl, 1994). Lohfink and Paulsen (2005) offered a comprehensive overview that took into consideration the connection between first-generation college students’ pre-college characteristics, examined their experiences in college and measured their ability to persist from year one to year two, and identified three key background
characteristics of first-generation college students that were connected to issues with persistence: being Hispanic, having lower income, or being female. In addition, Lohfink and Paulsen (2005) found that these characteristics created issues in continuing-generation students’ persistence to graduation.
Further, Ishitani (2006) showed that FGS were “less likely to complete their degree programs in a timely manner” (p. 880). Overall, Ishitani (2006) concluded that first-generation college students were more at-risk to not persist and complete degree programs in a timely manner. However, it is important to understand that confounding factors including “high school academic attributes along with other factors, such as family income, affect the college
persistence rate for first-generation students longitudinally” (Ishitani, 2006, p. 880). Therefore, an examination of what caused students to leave college even though they initially chose these very institutions to complete their degrees. Examining first-generation college students’
